REPORT ON THE B.A. PROGRAMME OF JAPANESE STUDIES,
University of Latvia
1. Introduction
The following report is based on the self-evaluation report compiled by
prof.Ivbulis, notes made during the peer visit of the accreditation committee to
the University of Latvia, the documents furnished by dr.Dzelme of the Higher
Education Quality Evaluation Centre, and international usage. According to the
instuctions received, the goal of the evaluation of the programme is to assess
the academic and material resources used by the university to complete the
tasks the programme has posed to itself, and to assess the compatibility of the
programme with the academic standards of other countries.
The evaluation will necessarily take into account also the situation in Latvia,
particularly the scant availability of resources. It should be remarked on the
outset that the teaching of Japanese and subjects related to Japan at the
University of Latvia is extremely important and should certainly receive more
support from the administration of the university.
2. The Programme, Its Goals and Structure
The report states that the primary aim of the programme is "to train people,
capable to work as teachers of Japanese, as interpreters and translators and as
the basic level experts in the history, culture and politics of Japan". Thus, with a
pointed stress on the pragmatic side, the programme tries to furnish the students
with the capability to "tackle a broad range of issues connected with Japan as
one of the most highly developed and influential countries in the world".
Although this is a perfectly legitimate approach, it would perhaps be advisable
also to promote academic research that would improve the condition of Japanese
Studies in Latvia and provide the programme with perspectives of development.
The graduation requirements of the programme comprise 164 credits, each
credit corresponding to a weekly workload of 40 hours. This standard
corresponds to the degree system adopted in the Baltic countries, where the
B.A. is the usual degree awarded to a successful student upon graduation.. The list
of courses included in the supplement to the report does not clarify the content of
the courses, and at some cases I had to resort to guesswork, for instance by
interpreting "Japanese spelling" as the study of Chinese characters.
More detailed information was available in Latvian during the visit and it
became apparent that in fact the content of the courses is strictly regulated. Only
12 credits are dedicated to theoretical courses that are unrelated to Japanese
studies. This number is too small in order to enable the students to exploit fully
the resources and the possibilities the university offers, to acquire sufficient
background knowledge and to develop their ability of independent thinking. It
is advisable to increase this number at least to 20 and make a range of freely
elected courses in various fields available to the students so that they might
improve their theoretical background, whatever their chosen field. For example,
it is not necessary to teach literary theory to students who wish to pursue the
study of Japanese economy.
Of the 164 credits, 78 credits are dedicated to the study of the Japanese
language. This amount is unreasonably high. In most universities of the region
that run Japanese studies programmes the corresponding number ranges
between 20 and 50. The remaining credits could be used for increasing the
range of freely elected subjects. It also seems that each one credit of the 78
does not necessarily correpsond to 40 hours.
For instance, the course of "Japanese spelling" comprises 30 credits. If this
course is indeed the study of Japanese characters, it should run to the total of
1200 hours. The usual practice of approximating the amount of contact hours to
one half of the total time would make the number 600 contact hours. During
one contact hour, at least 5 new characters could be learned and practiced. That
would make the total graduation requirement for the programme to be about
3000 characters. This should almost surpass normal Japanese competence, and
even half the amount would be more than satisfactory for a B.A. programme.
During the visit it was established that the students actually master about 13001600 characters upon graduation, which is fully concordant with B.A. standards. It
is therefore unreasonable to give them so many credits for the course.
The remaining courses also seem to be overestimated in credits, especially if
one compares the with the "weight" of theoretical subjects. The course of
"Japanese conversational language" equals to the amount of Japanese geography,
culture and history taken together.
Some aspects of the Japanese language, notably Classical Japanese, are not
taught at all, nor do the students of Japanese acquire any knowledge of Chinese,
classical or modern. This is compatible with the pragmatic orientation of the
programme, but the option might be available for the students inclined to
pursue academic careers.
It would be advisable to restructure the compulsory part of the programme
according to the pattern of the B.A. programme of Chinese studies, so that
some of the credits now given for language courses would be allocated to
theoretical subjects.
The epistemological background and content of the theoretical subjects related to
Japan is also unclear and outdated. The term "newest history", for instance, is a
coinage of Soviet Russian historiographers to designate the period from the Great
Socialist October Revolution till the final triumph of communism. It seems
doubtful whether the use of this paradigm is still fruitful in academic work.
Similarly, the difference between "ancient" and "medieval" history and literature
is cumbersome. Does "ancient" designate the Nara period (710-194)? If so, then
why does it receive as much attention in the study of literary history as do the
"middle ages" (794-1600 or 794-1868)? In the explication of the Japanese
literature course one finds that proletarian literature receives more attention
than the role of its authors merits, whereas authors such as Mishima Yukio
(prohibited in the Soviet Union) are absent altogether and under the heading
of "young auhtors" we find Abe Kobo and Oe Kenzaburo, one of them dead, the
other recipient of the Nobel prize. The study of Japanese religions is altogether
absent from the programme, just like Japanese society, economy and politics. The
latter three should, however, be necessary for a practice-oriented programme.
The assigned number of credit points to the courses suggests that reading lists
for the literature courses might not exist at all. In short, on the theoretical side
the programme is a clone of the programmes of Soviet Russian universities.
It is certainly necessary that the students would be able to read English, but the
high amount of credits should be necessary only for somebody with no prior
knowledge of it. It would thus be advisable to allocate a certain amount of
credits to the study of other foreign languages of the studetn's choice.
Somebody who has studies in an English-biased school might make use of the
opportunity to study another Asian or European language, such as Chinese,
German or Russian. At present the students are required to use materials in
Russian though the language is not taught to them. It is doubtful whether the
linguistic situation in Latvia will enable to carry this policy much further, and it
should therefore be advisable to make the programme accessible to those
students who know Latvian but not Russian, e.g. expatriate Latvians. During
discussions with the staff and students it became apparent that the individual
academic work of the students is strictly regulated, for instance the students are
not at liberty to choose their exact topics of graduation theses, but are required to
translate books from lists that are given to them. This practice
should be abandoned and more attention should be paid to research than
translation.
On the basis of the above it seems that the structure of the programme is at
present unsatisfactory and would need considerable changes. The flaws in the
programme may also hardly be explained only by the lack of resources.
3. The Resources
3.1. Academic Staff
The person responsible for the programme is Prof.Dr.Ivbulis, a renowned
Indologist, and the teaching is done basically by Edgars Katajs and
Mag.Paed.Brigita Krumina. Neither of them is permanently employed by the
university. Mag.Paed.Krumina teaches at the Ziemelu secondary school of
Japanese language and culture, and part of the B.A. programme is also carried
out there. The committee had an opportunity to visit the school and was very
much impressed by the quality of the work done there. However, for the
continuation of the programme it would be necessary to dissociate it from the
school.
It is understandable that in the initial stage of development it is difficult to find
sufficient qualified staff, but it is also unimaginable that a full-fledged
academic programme is taught only by teachers on part-time basis, none of
whom has academic degrees in the field. The qualification of Edgars Katajs is
certainly beyond any doubt, and the university might consider awarding him an
honorary doctorate. However, the programme would certainly need at least one
permanently employed person with an academic degree or significant merit in
Japanese Studies who would be responsible for the content and the development
of the programme. The university should create such position in order to continue
with the programme.
3.2. Material Resources
According to the report, the students have to use the library of a secondary
school for their studies. However good the library, such a situation is not
satisfactory. Dependence of the National Library, or an Academic Library
would also not be acceptable in the long run, but would still be preferable. It is
generally known that the Japan Foundation supports generously the libraries of
institutions pursuing Japanese Studies, both with teaching materials and academic
publications, and it remains unclear why the university has not
applied for such aid. Most probably this lack is also caused by the absence of a
staff member responsible for Japanese studies.
4. Students
At present, the programme only accepts graduates of the Ziemelu school of
Japanese culture or candidates with comparable qualifications, of whom there
are few. That makes the programme very much the continuation of the
secondary school. This practice should be abandoned as soon as possible; it
would be advisable to provide university-level Japanese courses on all levels
and admit those with prior knowledge of the language to higher-level groups on the
basis of tests.
The committeee had a chance to discuss the programme briefly with three
students, all of whom were strongly motivated and in good command of the
Japanese language. They were also aware of the problems of the progamme and
willing to contribute to solving them in the future.
5. Conclusions and Recommendations
On the basis of the above it seems that the university does not have at present
satisfactory resources to run a full-fledged B.A. programme in Japanese
Studies. However, there is significant potential in the programme and it could be
developed into a more than satisfactory shape within a few years. For that, the
university administration should commit itself more: it should establish a
position for of a staff member who would be responsible for the maintenance
and development of the programme. That person should subsequently make the
necessary structural changes in the programme itself. The programme should
also be dissociated from the Ziemelu secondary school and associated more
closely with other programmes of Asian studies. It is quite possible that these
changes could be carried out within a two-year period. For that time, the
programme could be conditionally accredited.
Prof. Rein Raud
Estonian Institute of the Humanities,
University of Helsinki
EVALUATION OF THE BACHELOR PROGRAMME IN JAPANESE
STUDIES, UNIVERSITY OF LATVIA
Latvia's success in developing an effective Japanese language programme using
limited resources is most impressive. The current structure produces students with a
good functional fluency in Japanese and with some familiarity with Japanese culture.
With the world's second largest economy and with a language and culture which
outsiders often find difficult to grasp, Japan is of considerable long-term importance to
Latvia, and the value of maintaining and enhancing the programme must be
emphasised. Not only does Latvia requires a small corps of people who can act as
cultural and economic intermediaries between Japan and Latvia, but Japan, like China,
provides an important cultural mirror for Latvia society.
This said, the present structure of the programme is one characteristic of early
and pioneering ventures in Japanese language study. Without in any way denigrating
the fine contributions which Mr Katajs and Mrs Krumina have made to the
development of this programme, the structure of the programme does not correspond
to that which one should expect at university level and time has come to build on their
work by institutionalizing Japanese studies as a proper university-level course of study.
Recruitment
The strength of the Japanese programme in the long term will depend on its
capacity to serve a number of different student constituencies. At present, the
university's Japanese language courses are a direct continuation of the pioneering and
evidently effective Japanese language programme at the Ziemelu school of Japanese
culture. This arrangement has the advantage that students have a long period of
exposure to Japanese and they emerge from the university programme with an
impressive level of fluency.
The arrangement, however, has the disadvantage that there is effectively no
possibility for students to begin the study of Japanese when they enter university. The
structure excludes an unknown number of students who may have developed an
interest in Japanese later in their school careers or who were unable to attend the
Ziemelu school. It is highly desirable that provision be made for students to begin their
studies of Japanese in their first year at University, as they do in Chinese. Even though
this arrangement would require the teaching of more classes, it would significantly
broaden the catchment area for the programme and thus strengthen its economic
position.
Nature of the programme
The programme as presently structured has a strong emphasis on teaching
students to master modern Japanese, with the study of (some aspects of) Japanese
literature as a subsidiary emphasis. There is apparently no attention to Japanese
economics or to the special characteristics of Japanese society. What mention there is
of Japanese politics must be covered in the small subject, 'The new and newest history
of Japan', which must also deal with the momentous events since the mid-nineteenth
century.
This emphasis evidently reflects both the interests of the two main Latvian
teachers in the programme and a conviction that practical mastery of Japanese
language ought to be emphasised. These reasons are both legitimate, but they have the
effect that the study of Japanese language takes place with relatively little connection
to an understanding of Japanese society, economics and politics and a thoroughly
meagre understanding of social, economic and political issues in general. The relatively
small number of subjects which students can take outside the specified Japanese
language programme (only 12 points) and the fact that Mrs
Krumina is also responsible for a major part of the teaching (some of which takes
place at the school), means that students of the Japanese programme have relatively
little opportunity to develop the kind of independent critical thinking which should be
encouraged at university and which is necessary for training new researchers.
In practice, moreover, it appears that the only form which the 20 credit point
bachelor paper takes is that of a translation from Japanese into Latvian. Translation, of
course, is a'thoroughly appropriate skill to be taught in a language department, but by
insisting that all students follow this path, the programme dangerously narrows the
range of skills which it allows students to develop. The lack of higher study of Japan
which the self-evaluation report refers to appears to be attributable, at least partly, to
the scope and structure of the programme.
I am not competent to judge the relationship between the number of credit
points allocated to language teaching and the relevant workload for students, but my
colleague Professor Raud considered that the students' workloads were relatively light
in relation to the credit points awarded. If this is the case, then there would be a very
strong case for reducing the number of points linked with language study and
permitting students to undertake a wider range of optional subjects, whether from the
Sinology programme or from other social science and humanities departments in the
university.
Academic standing
Academic responsibility for the Japanese programme currently lies with
Professor Victors Ivbulis, while the bulk of the teaching is done by Mr Katajs and Mrs
Krumina, with some assistance from Japanese native speakers. This was an entirely
appropriate arrangement for the earliest stages of developing the Japanese
programme. It must be stated, however, that Professor Ivbulis is an eminent Indologist
and will soon retire, Mr Katajs is already retired, and Mrs Krumina is director of the
Ziemelu school. There is therefore no full time academic expert on Japan who has
intellectual and administrative responsibility for the programme.
It is my view that the programme cannot receive normal accreditation while
this state of affairs remains the case. The success of the programme so far has shown
that the study of Japan is viable at the University of Latvia, and the suggestions from
this committee indicate ways in which it can be made still more successful. The
academic shortcomings which we have identified, however, are likely to be crippling in
the long term unless prompt action is taken to establish the Japanese language
programme as a full part of the university structure. This requires the appointment of a
full time academic specialist on Japan and Japanese to take intellectual charge of the
programme. I hope that the programme will continue to be able to use the formidable
skills of both Mr Katajs and Mrs Krumina, but it is important for the intellectual
standing of the programme that classes no longer take place at the school and that the
university begin to develop resources within the Foreign Languages faculty, including a
study library, so that students can make a clear and natural step from school to
university.
Recommendations
In its present form, the Japanese studies programme is not up to the standard
which one should expect of such a programme at a major national universities. The
shortcomings of the programme are a consequence of the unusual path of development
which led to the introduction of the programme and thus reflect no discredit on either
Professor Ivbulis or the teaching staff. Nonetheless, major changes will be necessary if
this pioneering programme is
to be acceptable as part of the structure of the University of Latvia. It is the turn of
the University and the Faculty to recognise the effort and imagination which has gone
into the programme and to acknowledge its effectiveness by raising it to a proper status
within the Faculty.
I recommend therefore that accreditation for two years be granted on condition
that no new intake of students is accepted into the university programme until proper
steps have been taken to appoint a full time academic leader for the Japanese studies
programme. That person should have as his or her initial task an overhaul of the
programme to bring it into line with university standards. Amongst the changes which
that person should consider are:
1. That introductory subjects be devised so that students can commence their
study of Japanese language when they enter university.
2. That the number of optional subjects within the programme be increased, so that
students are able to choose from a range of other possibilities, either from the
Sinology programme or from other disciplines.
3. That efforts be made to develop better coverage of Japanese economics, society
and politics in the range of subjects offered within the programme (but acknowledging
that this development will depend on the availability of additional staff).
4. That students have the option of writing their final bachelor's paper on a proper
research topic, rather than as a translation.
5. That serious efforts be made to seek the assistance of the Japan Foundation in
developing a working library for the programme.
In addition, I echo the suggestion of my colleague Professor Raud that the
University (or Faculty, as appropriate) consider awarding an honorary doctorate to Mr
Katajs in acknowledgement of fine scholarship and his contribution to the development
of Japanese studies in Latvia.
Robert Cribb
Copenhagen 12 January 1999
Report of Prof. Janhunen is available in Latvian (electronically) or
English (hard copy only).